Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing: The CIA’sEfforts to Weaponize Mind Control

Marissa Whitten

‘\7orld War II brought a virulent plague of paranoia to America thatran rampant through the population and the government. As tension betweenthe United States and Communist forces escalated in the late 1940s, the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA) embarked on a series of covert research projects todetermine the significance of the Communist threat. The CIA initially beganmind control research programs as a defensive maneuver against brainwashingtactics that it suspected the Communists had already acquired. However, as theCIA increasingly embraced offensive strategies, the programs devolved fromnecessary research conducted in the interest of national security to extraneousexperimentation performed on human subjects to perfect methods ofinterrogation and coercion through torture. Moreover, the CIA’s experimentsundoubtedly crossed the ethical line when the agency continued to performesoteric research on human subjects after CIA research concluded that theCommunists had not developed the mind control capabilities initially feared.While the CIA’s research began as an attempt to safeguard the interests of theUnited States, the CIA took advantage of its power by conducting progressivelymore aggressive experimentation that was not consistent with the level ofprovocation from its enemies.

The CIA’s questionable ethics during its research was first investigatedin 1975 when a Congressional hearing was held to vet accusations that the CIAwas conducting torturous experiments. However, the depth of the agency’soffenses were not revealed until 1977 when John Marks acquired thousands ofdocuments about the CIA’s mind control programs through the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). After a year of tediously examining these documentsand extensively researching the CIA and its victims, Marks’s The Search for theManchurian Candidate was published in 1979. Marks argues that the CIA’sbrainwashing research was a defense tactic invoked by paranoid suspicions ofcommunist methods of mind control that first arose after the Moscow ShowTrials in the late 1930s.’ However, he claims that while the CIA’s researchbegan as a response to suspicious Communist activities, its own research wasaggressive from the start. He says, “The line between offense and defense—if itever existed—soon became so blurred as to be meaningless.”2 The first section

‘John Marks, The Sea rch for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control (New York:Times Books, 1979) Kindle Edition, 1$.2lbid., 19.

98 Marissa Whiuen

of Marks’s book discusses the events that compelled the agency to investigatebrainwashing. Marks explains how the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—theCIA’s forerunner—was already researching gruesome experiments conductedby Nazis at Dachau. The Moscow Show Trials and the mysterious confessionsof Korean Prisoners of War (POWs) thus provided justification for continuingresearch on possible mind-altering methods.3 Marks likens the experimentsperformed at Dachau to the CIA’s experiments by observing that in each casethe victims were selected out of prejudice. He equates the Nazi’s Jewish victimsto the CIA’s “mental patients, prostitutes, foreigners, drug addicts, andprisoners, often from minority ethnic groups.”4 The second section of Marks’sbook outtines the various methods of drug use that the CIA conducted on wittingand unwilling individuals alike, and the third section covers the CIA’sexploration of hypnosis and various behavioral modification techniques. Marksasserts that the CIA’s worst fears overshadowed the facts at hand because theintelligence acquired on the Communist’s programs was severely lacking andmisguided from the start.5 Furthermore, he argues that, despite confirmationthat the Communists had not acquired unconventional mind control methods, theCIA moved forward with its research under the faint hope that the desiredmethods were remotely feasible.6

The excellent research done by Marks has left little to be uncovered byothers on this subject as of yet. Subsequent research overwhelmingly supportsthe events outlined in Marks’s book. Certain works, however, such as DominicStreatfeild’s Brainwash, do offer some alternative approaches in understandingthe CIA’s mind control activities. In his book, Streatfeild contends that while itis not clear how much hard evidence the CIA had on any mind control methodsthe Communists were using when the initial research programs began, the CIAdid have evidence that the Communists were experimenting with various drugsand chemical substances.7 Like Marks, Streatfeild concludes, “[w]hat appears tohave started as a defensive programme—researching interrogation techniques asa means of preparing US servicemen for capture—soon became an offensiveone.” 8 Streatfeild expounds on Marks’s belief that false POW confessions wereused to justify further research. He claims that the CIA knew that the POWs hadsimply succumbed to torture and loss of morale, but the U.S. government foundthese confessions embarrassing. Therefore, in order to distract from the POWtestimonies, the CIA allowed unfounded rumors to persist that the POWs hadbeen brainwashed.9 Propaganda also gave the Agency an excuse to uncover thepossible benefits of brainwashing)0 Nonetheless, Streatfeild, echoing Marks’sconclusion, claims that despite the CIA’s intensive research, all available

Ibid., 4-25.Ibid., 8.

5lbid., 22.6Ibid.,96.

Dominic Streatfeild, Brainwash: The Secret Histoty ofMind Control (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 2007), 22-39.8 Ibid., 26-27.

Ibid., 339-340.0 Ibid., 341.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 99

evidence shows that the CIA was never able to master brainwashing the way ithad hoped, and it is highly unlikely that the CIA ever controlled any“Manchurian Candidate” puppet.’2

Another scholar who built upon ideas from Marks’s work is DavidPrice, who provides further insight into the covert funding of the CIA’sactivities in his article, “Buying a Piece of Anthropology.” Like Marks andStreatfeild, he contends that the CIA covertly funneled government money intoprofessional, educational, and medical organizations to conduct research that theCIA could harness for its own use.’3 Reclaims that most of the individuals whotook part in CIA funded research had no knowledge that their work was beingused for military purposes.’4 He furthers this argument by saying that thebehavioral information obtained from these institutions was used to develop theKubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual—a CIA manual describingmethods to efficiently interrogate enemy prisoners as well as teach U.S.prisoners to resist interrogation.’5 He further points out that the documentessentially teaches agents how to torture those being interrogated. He claimsthat the CIA created experiments that seemed benign to the average researcherbut were extremely useful to the agency’s interrogation research, andexperiments that provided little or no aid to CIA interrogation tactics werefunded as a way to acquire legitimacy. Price’s analysis of the CIA’s covertfunding operations in behavioral studies provides critical insight into the CIA’saggressive intentions.

My analysis of the CIA’s research programs is possible because of theintensive research collected by the authors I have cited. From the evidenceavailable, the historiography overwhelmingly agrees on the basic timeline ofevents, and I concur with scholars who recognize that the CIA embarked onincreasingly aggressive tactics over the duration of its research. Like theauthors cited, my research has corroborated ideas that the CIA’s experimentswere a reaction to intelligence that reported that the Communists wereconducting mind control procedures and drug experimentation. It is importantto note, however, that the CIA documents available for assembling the pieces ofan unavoidably dismembered narrative, were written by people with varyingbiases and fears. While the Communists were undoubtedly conductingexperiments of their own, the extent to which these experiments were taken

° The Manchurian Candidate isa 1959 novel written by Richard Condon about a U.S. infantry unitthat is kidnapped and brainwashed during the Korean War by Communist forces. The story revealsthat the members of the infantry unit were released back to the United States with false implantedmemories. One of them is also brainwashed into becoming an unwitting sleeper agent who istriggered by a visual cue. The popularity of the book and subsequent film adaptations has made theterm “Manchurian Candidate” synonymous with an unwitting, programmable assassin.

2 Streatfeild, 345.3 David Price, Buying a Piece of Anthropology: Human Ecology and Unwitting Anthropological

Research for the CIA. Anthropology Today 23, no. 3 (June 2007). 1.I Ibid., 2.

‘3lbid., I.‘‘ Ibid., 2.° Ibid., 2.

VOLUME XXII 2013

100 Marissa Whitten

cannot be substantiated solely on the intelligence gathered by a paranoid agency.Nonetheless, this paper’s aim is to understand the CIA’s motives and actionsduring its mind control research. It is clear that the main motive behind theCIA’s initial actions was to protect against the threat of Communistbrainwashing; however, the CIA’s paranoia caused it ignore its own violation ofhuman rights. Furthermore, I concur with Streatfeild that the CIA tookadvantage of widespread propaganda to continue to search for psychologicalweapons despite the lifting of the Communist brainwashing threat. Therefore,because the majority of the CIA’s research proved to be preemptive, the CIAbecame the danger that it initially tried to defend against.

It took years for the CIA to pursue research that was dangerous. TheCIA began looking into the effects of drugs and hypnosis after World War IIwhen a series of trials held by Communist regimes conjured confessions fromseemingly innocent individuals accused of treason. Initially, the CIA’s drugtesting was conducted on volunteers, but began very quickly on unwittingindividuals. Then, in 1953, confessions from American POWs, admitting toknowledge of U.S. involvement in germ warfare, marked the beginnings of themost notorious of the CIA’s brainwashing research known as MKULTRA. Themajority of details about the CIA’s mind control projects were unknown to thepublic until victims began surfacing in the media in the 1970s. With the rise invictim testimonies, Senator Frank Church held a Congressional hearing in 1975to investigate the extent to which the CIA had taken its research. IS However, the1975 hearing left many unanswered questions because CIA director RichardHelms had destroyed most of the CIA documents useful to the investigation in1973) It was not until John Marks’ FOIA inquiry that substantial evidence wasprovided. Marks obtained over 20,000 CIA documents covering the span of theCIA mind control projects. With this new evidence, Senator Ted Kennedy heldanother hearing in 1977. While not all the accusations could be proven from thenew evidence, the recovered FOIA documents and the 1977 hearing confirmedthat many of the accusations against the CIA were, in fact, true.2° U.S. citizenswere dismayed and frightened at how the CIA pursued such menacingexperiments on its own people. Hindsight has proven that paranoia is indeed apersuasive force!

In the late 1930s, the confessions obtained through the Moscow ShowTrials created a climate of suspicion and confusion that the United States couldnot ignore. Many of the accused confessed their crimes during the public trials,appearing unnaturally eager to admit to high counts of treason punishable bydeath.2’ Furthermore, witnesses described the defendants’ behavior as trance-

IS ABC News, Mission: Mind Control, Altemeyer, Paul, 1979,http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/ mind_control/mission_mind_control_abc (accessedApril 16, 2012).‘ Marks, 153.20 Senate Committee on Htiman Resources, Project MKULTRA, the CIAs Program of research inBehai’iorat Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Health and ScientificResearch oft/ic Committee on Hwnan Resources. 95th Cong., 1St session, Aug 3, 1977.2I Streatfeild,4.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 101

like.22 One recovered document written by an Office of Strategic Officesdocument notes, “It became apparent at the outset of the study that the style,context and mauner of delivery of the ‘confessions’ were such as to beinexplicable unless there had been a reorganization and reorientation of theminds of the confesees.” from the onset of the trial, the CIA believed thatmind control methods were used because the behavior of the accused was notconsistent with the behavior of individuals who have undergone physical torture.One document states that those facing trial, “regress[edj to [an] infantile state ofabject dependency on a parental object (the State), characteristic of hypnosis(consistent with transference phenomenon), a basic change in character structureresult[ing from] hypnosis.”24 During this time, the OSS knew little about thecapabilities of hypnosis, so the prospect that Communist powers had suchastonishing success with these methods was cause for alarm.

By 1949, the trial of dissident Hungarian Cardinal Jozsef Mindszentygave the CIA further reason to worry. The Cardinal’s trial mimicked the earlierMoscow Show Trials, although his case had one more intriguing piece ofinformation: before his arrest Mindszenty sent letters to Catholic officials inHungary stating that he was not involved in any conspiracy. His confessionsduring the trials, however, said otherwise. A 1949 CIA document states, “It is areasonable certainty (though unproven) that ‘confessions’ in high-level trials ofpolitical or propaganda significance in Russian-dominated areas are prepared byhypnosis. Hypnosis control is begun following a period of psychological duressand drugging, the re-education under hypnosis being re-inforced with interimdialectical pressure.”26 Under the assumption that the Communists usedhypnosis and drugs to predetermine the actions of the people at trial, the CIAcould not ignore the baffling evidence. However, it was not until 1950 that theCIA took direct action to investigate the use of hypnosis.

In 1950, project BLUEBIRD was initiated. This project had specificdefensive goals of acquiring information on the tactics being employed by theRussians. One document states the following main goals of BLUEBIRD:

(a)Discovering means of conditioning personnel to preventunauthorized extraction of information of them by knownmeans, (b) the possibility of obtaining control of an individualby application of special interrogation techniques, (c) memory

22 Marks, 17.U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,”Office of Strategic Services: Development of’Truth Drug,’

#184373,” June 211943, http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/ciamind_control_documents_orig/(Accessed March 16,2012), 1.24 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Office of Strategic Services: Development of Truth Drug,’#184373,” 3.

Streatfeild, 4.26 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Report No. 1 (on two month trip), #144892,” August 15 1949,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 1.

VOLUME XXII 2013

102 Marissa Whitten

enhancement and (d) defensive means for preventing hostilecontrol of Agency personnel.27

The main agenda stressed in these goals was to protect against invasiveinterrogation techniques. However, another CIA document shows thatBLUEBIRD was a preemptive project. It states, “It is further suggested that acollection requirement be issued so that this office might be the recipient of allavailable information concerning the interrogation techniques under actual useor research by unfriendly countries. By acquiring such information, this officecan at least keep abreast to or possibly surpass these interrogation techniques.”28It was necessary for the CIA to protect against Communist tactics, butdiscovering tactics to use against enemies along the way were welcomed aswell.

By 1951, the CIA moved further into offensive strategies with theinitiation of project ARTICHOKE. ARTICHOKE’s goals, as highlighted in oneCIA document, were as follows:

1. Extraction of information from unwilling subjects2. Preventing extraction of information from our agents3. Control of activity of individuals whether they wish it

or not4. Preventing control of our agents29

Essentially, at the outset, ARTICHOKE had two main agendas:establishing defensive and offensive understanding of interrogation andcoercion. The CIA was not only willing to understand Communist tactics, buthad made it equally important to explore aggressive methods for the Agency’sown use. One ARTICHOKE document says, “In addition to its consideration ofthe standard methods.. .it will also consider other special or unorthodox methodssuch as brain damage, sensory stimulation, hypnosis, so-called ‘blackpsychiatry,’ ‘Pavlovian condition,’ ‘brain-washing,’ or any other methodshaving pertinence for such procedures as interrogation, subversion, orseduction.”3° In the following years, the CIA’s efforts to understand andsurpass Communist interrogation and coercion methods manifested into three

27 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Behavioral Drugs, #146193,” January29 1975,http://wanttoknow.info! mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents..pri g/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 2.28 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Security Research Section: Interrogation Techniques ofUnfriendly Countries, #184367,” February 24 1949,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 3.29 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Organization of SO Components Dealing with ARTICHOKE,#190716,” 1951, http:fiwanttoknow.info/mind control/cia mind control documents orig/(Accessed March 16,2012), 1.° U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,”Narrative Description of the Overt and Covert Activities,#190882,” 1950, http://wanttoknow.info/mind control/cia mind control documents orig/(Accessed March 16, 2012), 2.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 103

main efforts: to attain a reliable truth serum, to use hypnosis to control one’sactions, and to develop consistent methods of brainwashing.

‘While the trials may have initiated the CIA’s interest in hypnosis, theagency hoped to harness unparalleled—though morally questionable—results,even in the earliest stages of its research. One document outlining some of theagency’s shocking ambitions regarding hypnosis reads, “Can we in a matter ofan hour, two hours, one day, etc. induce an H condition in an unwitting subjectto such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit?”31 Anotherdocument asks, “Can we seize a subject and in the space of an hour or two bypost-H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.?”32 Essentially,the CIA was trying to create a programmable assassin.

The CIA official that spearheaded BLUEBIRD’s hypnosis research wasMorse Allen, who was instrumental in pushing forward many of the CIA’sefforts in hypnosis.33 Allen interviewed one hypnotist in particular who gave adisturbing account of his abilities. In one CIA document, Allen explains, “[Thehypnotist] stated he had constantly used hypnosis as a means of inducing younggirls to engage in sexual intercourse with him... Many times while going home,[he] would use hypnotic suggestion to have a girl turn around and talk tohim.. .and.. .as a result of these suggestions induced by him he spentaproximately 5 nights a week away from home engaging in sexual intercourse.“‘s’ Allen wanted to see if this powerful influence could be used for the CIA’sbenefit. One 1951 document described an experiment in which two hypnotized,female volunteers followed instructions given to them post-hypnosis to assemblewhat they were told was a bomb. The document says that one volunteer,

[deleted] being in a complete SI (sleep induced) state at thistime, was then told to open her eyes and was shown anelectric timing device. She was informed that this timingdevice was an incendiary bomb and was then instructed howto attach and set the device. After [deletedi had indicated thatshe had learned how to set and attached the device, she wastold to return to sleep.35

31 “H” was the code for “hypnosis”; U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Special Research,BLUEBIRD [deleted], #148197,’ January 11951,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 6.32 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “BLUEBIRD,” 6.‘ Streaffeild, 151.l U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Untitled, #147378,” July 9, 1951,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 2.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “SI and H Experiments, #190527, 1951,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/ cia_mincLcontrol_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 1.

VOLUME XXII 2013

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 103

main efforts: to attain a reliable truth serum, to use hypnosis to control one’sactions, and to develop consistent methods of brainwashing.

While the trials may have initiated the CIA’s interest in hypnosis, theagency hoped to harness unparalleled—though morally questionable—results,even in the earliest stages of its research. One document outlining some of theagency’s shocking ambitions regarding hypnosis reads, “Can we in a matter ofan hour, two hours, one day, etc. induce an H condition in an unwitting subjectto such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit?”31 Anotherdocument asks, “Can we seize a subject and in the space of an hour or two bypost-H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.?”32 Essentially,the CIA was trying to create a programmable assassin.

The CIA official that spearheaded BLUEBIRD’s hypnosis research wasMorse Allen, who was instrumental in pushing forward many of the CIA’sefforts in hypnosis.33 Allen interviewed one hypnotist in particular who gave adisturbing account of his abilities. In one CIA document, Allen explains, “[Thehypnotist] stated he had constantly used hypnosis as a means of inducing younggirls to engage in sexual intercourse with him... Many times while going home,[he] would use hypnotic suggestion to have a girl turn around and talk tohim... and.. .as a result of these suggestions induced by him he spentapproximately 5 nights a week away from home engaging in sexual intercourse.“ Allen wanted to see if this powerful influence could be used for the CIA’sbenefit. One 1951 document described an experiment in which two hypnotized,female volunteers followed instructions given to them post-hypnosis to assemblewhat they were told was a bomb. The document says that one volunteer,

[deleted] being in a complete SI (sleep induced) state at thistime, was then told to open her eyes and was shown anelectric timing device. She was informed that this timingdevice was an incendiary bomb and was then instructed howto attach and set the device. After [deleted] had indicated thatshe had learned how to set and attached the device, she wastold to return to sleep.35

“H” was the code for “hypnosis”; U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Special Research,BLUEBIRD [deleted], #148197,” January 11951,http:llwanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_odg/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 6.32 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “BLUEBIRD,” 6.u Streatfeild, 151.

L U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Untitled, #147378,” July 9, 1951,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 2.u U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “SI and H Experiments, #190527,” 1951,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/ cia_mind_control_documents_Ong/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 1.

VOLUME XXII. 2013

104 Marissa Whitten

Both women carried out the experiment perfectly, though one had onlypartial memory of her actions.36

Allen’s experiments continued for several years without success increating a programmable assassin; however, in 1954, one anonymous hypnotistgave the CIA hope. In response to CIA personnel asking whether or not aperson could be manipulated into doing something they would not do otherwise,the hypnotist replied,

This is a muchly [sic] debated subject and, in my opinion, as ageneral rule, no individual will do anything against his moralcode or upbringing under a hypnotic trance they would not dootherwise. However, it should be remembered that by theproper type of conditioning and a very intelligent andunderstanding approach using psychology, individuals couldbe taught to do anything including murder, suicide, etc.37

This was put to the test with Allen’s infamous pistol experiment in which afemale volunteer who previously expressed a fear of firearms was hypnotizedand told to pick up a gun on the floor and shoot it at someone in the room. Thegun was not loaded, but she was told that is was. A document describing theexperiment says, “Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions to the letterincluding firing the (unloaded pneumatic pistol) gun at [deleted] and thenproceeding to fall into a deep steep.”38 She did not remember the experimentwhen she woke, however, and she could not be made to go through with theinstructions after she tvoke from the hypnotic trance.39 According to CIAdocumentation available to the public, the CIA’s efforts in hypnosisexperimentation continued throughout the 1950s but were unsuccessful increating a Manchurian Candidate. However, if the CIA had developed aprogrammable assassin, it would have gone to great lengths to keep thisinformation from ever being released to the public.

The CIA’s drug experimentation began even before its efforts inhypnosis. Shortly after the Moscow Show Trials, the OSS employed GeorgeWhite, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, to begin researching the effectsof THC40. In 1943, he first began giving oral doses of the drug to individualvolunteers who had worked on the Manhattan project. Since the individuals held

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “SI and H Experiments,” 3.U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Interview With., #190597,” 1952,

http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/ cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 5.38 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Hypnotic Experimentation and Research, #190691,” february10 1954, http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control!cia_mind_control_documents_orig! (Accessed March16, 2012), 1.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Hypnotic Experimentation and Research, #190691,” february10 1954, http://wanttoknow.info!mind_control!cia_mind_control_documents_odg/ (Accessed March16, 2012), 1.40Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the constituent derived from a cannabis plant (marijuana) that haspsychoactive effects when consumed.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 105

top-secret information, White concluded that the experiment would be a successif he could extract secret information from the volunteers. The tests proved tobe unsuccessful however.4’ White modified the experiment and injectedcigarettes with THC and gave it to an unwitting drug dealer. Another documentdescribes how “[WhiteJ gave treated cigarettes to a New York gangster, butwithout the subject knowing of the treatment. The gangster became voluble andimparted much secret information as attested by the attached copy of [deleted]report.”42 With these results, White was confident that finding a successful truthdrug was possible.

In 1953, new information on Soviet drug experimentation, followed bythe alarming confessions of the American POWs a few months later, promptedthe CIA to move into its most infamous and aggressive phase of drugexperimentation and brainwashing research, MKULTRA. The CIA becameparanoid that the Soviets were trying to find drugs to use as a truth serum aswell. One document reads, “Evidence of the use of drugs for court trials andprobable extensive use on war prisoners in the future, is supported by a report oflarge plantation in Nikita Gardens and another plantation at Dakehisarai in theCrimea devoted to the breeding and raising of subtropical plants for their speechproducing effects.”43 Pressure intensified when the confessions of the POWsgave rise to rumors that the Communists had acquired successful brainwashingmethods. Despite the CIA’s lack of evidence to support this theory, the rumorswere enough to breed anxiety about the sinister implications. To combat thesethreats, MKULTRA was initiated in April 1953, and the CIA moved forwardwith increasingly aggressive research.

The most shocking of MKULTRA’s aggressive tactics in the CIA’ssearch for a truth serum involved experiments conducted by the head Bureau ofNarcotics officer, George White. White set up safe houses in New York andSan Francisco.’ .The first safe house was set up in Greenwich Village, NewYork in 1953, preceding another in San Francisco, established two years later.45At these safe houses, men were solicited by CIA members or prostitutes andasked to come back to the safe house where the men were unwittingly dosedwith drugs and monitored, even during sexual acts. In Senator Kennedy’sopening address during the 1977 hearing, he said, “We now have collaborating

41 Streatfeild, 43.42 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Office of Strategic Services: Development of’Truth Drug,#184373,” June 211943, http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/(Accessed March 16, 2012), 3.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Office Memorandum: Request for [deleted] --Artichoke,#147390,” 1953, http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_documents_odg/(Accessed March 16, 2012), 5.

The safe houses set up by George White were locations designed to observe individuals thatWhite, or other hired individuals, such as prostitutes, invited to the location. The individuals wereobserved without their knowledge, even during sexual intercourse, and often unwittingly givenmind-altering substances.

Streatfeild, 84.Marks, 71.

VOLUME XXII. 2013

106 Marissa Whitten

information that some of the unwitting drug testing was carried on in safehouses....”47 According to the hearing’s briefings,

Prior consent was obviously not obtained from any of thesubjects. There was also, obviously, no medical prescreening.In addition, the tests were conducted by individuals who werenot qualified scientific observers. There were no medicalpersonnel on hand either to administer the drugs or to observetheir effects, and no follow-ups were conducted on the testsubjects.’

Since the CIA did not conduct follow ups and many of the CIA’s unwittingparticipants were too embarrassed to disclose that they were at the safe housebrothels, it is unknown how many people suffered severe psychological andphysical consequences due to the experiments.

It was this casual attitude towards the well-being of the individuals onwhom the CIA experimented that ultimately cost Dr. Frank Olsen his life.Olsen was a civilian employee of the Army who was unknowingly dosed withLSD by CIA officials. According to the 1977 hearing briefings,

Olsen unwittingly received approximately 70 micrograms ofLSD in a glass of Cointreau he drank on November 19,1953.. .Olsen exhibited symptoms of paranoia andschizophrenia... While in New York for treatment, Olsen fellto his death from a tenth story window in the Statler Hotel.49

It is believed that Olsen committed suicide days after suffering from apsychotic episode due to the LSD dosing. Shockingly, the CIA suspectedmonths before Olsen’s death that the “Communists [hadJ not employ{ed] sinistertechniques such as drugs, serums, etc., but straight propaganda indoctrination.”50Moreover, fueled by the momentum the CIA gained from its increasinglyaggressive research after the POW confessions, Olsen’s death did not hamperthe CIA’s testing of LSD on additional unwitting individuals for more than adecade.

U.S. Senate. Committe on Humman Resources, “Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program ofresearch in Behavioral Modification,” Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Health andScientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st sess., Aug 3, 1977, 8.

U.S. Senate Committee on Human Resources, “Project MKULTRA,” 69. There is littleinformation available to the public about the details of the safe houses and the individuals involved.The line quoted from the hearing briefing is a summary of the author’s knowledge from the trial aswell as MKULTRA documents unavailable for my analysis.‘ U.S. Senate Committee on Human Resources, “Project MKULTRA,” 74.5° U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Memorandum For: Chief of Operations, Report on POWsituation, #146093,” June 15 1953,http://wanttoknow.info/mincLcontrol/cia_mind_control_documents_orig/ (Accessed March 16,2012), 1.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 107

As with the CIA’s drug research, the POW confessions also catalyzedthe CIA’s aggressive research in brainwashing. Colonel Frank Schwable wasone of the men captured in Korea who later confessed over a Chinese radiostation that the United States had been involved in conducting germ warfareduring the Korean War. According to a New_York Times article from February1953, “The deposition allegedly signed by Colonel Schwable and broadcast infull by Peiping was in excellent English without the usual mistakes noted in theenemy’s propaganda.”51 The United States denied all the charges. In another1953 Times article, General Mark Clark repudiated the accusations, saying,“Whether the statements ever passed the lips of these unfortunate men isdoubtful. If they did, however, too familiar are the mind-annihilating methods ofthese Communists in extorting whatever words they want for there to be anymystery as to how they were fabricated.”52 By this point, propaganda aboutCommunist brainwashing tactics had been circulating in the American press.The reality of the Communist techniques, contrary to the preaching ofpropagandists, was that there was no “magic bullet”. As it turns out, Communistinterrogation methods varied little from those used as far back as the MiddleAges. It was through tactics based on traditional psychological torture that theCommunists developed systems of brainwashing.53 However, the CIA suspectedthis. As indicated by the June 1953 document, stating that the Communists wereusing “propaganda indoctrination,” the CIA knew at the earliest stages ofMKULTRA how the Communists were extracting false confessions. In fact, theCIA had been acquiring information on psychological indoctrination welt beforeMKULTRA.

The CIA’s research into behavioral studies began in 1951, when theCIA invited eight men, well known for their psychiatric expertise, to a meetingin Montreal, Canada to discuss possible explanations for the Moscow ShowTrials. Among these men was Dr. Donald Hebb of McGill University, who wasresearching the effects of sensory isolation and its manipulation of thought.Hebb conducted tests on college student volunteers in which the students stayedin a small confined box and wore noise canceling headphones, gloves, andgoggles.55 The results were more surprising that Hebb had expected. He says,“It scared the hell out of us to see how completely dependent the mind is on aclose connection with the ordinary sensory environment, and how disorganizingit is to be cut off from that support.” After Hebb relayed his findings to the

‘ “Red Germ Charges Cite 2 U.S. Marines: Peiping Radio says Air Officers Disclosed Joint ChiefsOrder for Bacteriological War,” New York Times, February 23 1953, ProQuest ($3712037).52 “U.S. Wages Germ Warfare in Korea: Statment of Prisoners of War, Colonel frank H. Schwable,04429,” Hsinhua Agency [Peking News Radiol, February 1953,http://www.umsl.edu/-’thomaskp/schwab.htm (accessed April 11, 2012).

The Communists were using psychological methods to manipulate the behavior of their captives:isolation, sleep deprivation, shame, fear of pain, etc.

Streaffeild, 106-107.Streaffeild, 109.Donald Hebb, “This is how it was,” Address to Canadian Psychological Association, 1980, quoted

in Alfred McCoy, “Science in Dachau’s Shadow: Hebb, Beecher, and the Development of CIA

VOLUME XXII 2013

108 Marissa Whitten

CIA and the POW’s radical changes in behavior became known to agency, theCIA delved further into research related to Hebb’s experiments.

To expand its research capabilities, the CIA founded the Society for theInvestigation of Human Ecology (SIHE) in 1954, and hired neurology expertHarold Wolff to run the organization. SIHE began giving money touniversities and hospitals in exchange for their conducting behavioralmodification research that the CIA felt would be useful in attaining Communistinterrogation techniques. Many of the individuals who conducted the research atthese organizations were completely unaware of the CIA’s involvement withtheir research. Under the guise of the SIHE, the CIA funded experimentalresearch on human subjects that mimicked scenarios the Communists werelikely employing. In 1955, psychologist Maitland Baldwin was recruited towork for the CIA. Baldwin’s experiments were undoubtedly torturous. In oneexperiment, Baldwin locked a U.S. army volunteer in a box for forty hours.Despite the soldier crying uncontrollably, the experiment continued until the hefinally kicked himself free from the box. In one 1957 CIA document, whichreferences experiments conducted by two CIA funded organizations, the writeradmits, “Some of the activities are considered to be professionally unethical andin some instances bordered on the illegal.”59 Nonetheless, the torturousexperimentation continued with support from CIA funding in the interest ofmastering an understanding of how to best manipulate human behavior.

Research performed by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allen MemorialInstitute from 1957 to 1963 made national headlines in the mid-1980s when ninevictims of Cameron’s research sued the CIA. Ewen conducted hypnosis, LSDtesting and electroshock experiments on patients at the institute who had beenadmitted for mental health problems.6° Another method favored by Cameronwas what he called “psychic driving,” in which the patient was made to listen toa looped recording of his or her own voice, oftentimes repeating negativemessages such as “Everything about me was wrong” or “...my parents had mejust to even up the family.”6’ In a 1979 ABC interview, Val Orlikow recountsher experience at the Allen Memorial Institute. Describing the “sleep rooms”—rooms in which electro-shock therapy and drugs were used to induce long boutsof sleep—Orkilow recounts, “People in there were like babies. They cried. Andwe were very afraid of the sleep room. We used to walk very carefully against

Psychological Torture and Modem Medical Ethics,” Journal of the History of the BehavioralSciences (Wiley lnterscience), 2007: 44.

Price, 2-3.Streatfeild, 117.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Untitled, #1461 67,” 1957,http://wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_ control_documents_origl (Accessed March 16,2012).° Alfred McCoy, “Science in Dachau’s Shadow: Hebb, Beecher, and the Development of CIAPsychological Torture and Modem Medical Ethics,” Joarnal of the History of the BehavioralSciences (Wiley Interscience), 2007: 408.SI Ewan Camerion, “Psychic Driving: Dynamic Implant,” Psychiatric Quarterly 31, no. 1-4(1957):704.

EX POST FACTO

Perfecting the Art of Brainwashing 109

the side of the quarter that was opposite the sleep room with our backs againstthe wall when we went by.”62

She says that no one asked permission to give her LSD and performexperimental medical practices on her. More than twenty years later, Orlikowcan still barely describe the torment she endured during her time at the institute.

Ultimately, the CIA did discover the methods which the Communistsused to successfully brainwash their captives, and these methods became astaple in CIA interrogation techniques. These techniques were consolidated intothe Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation manual in 1963. However, it didnot take the CIA until 1963 to pinpoint the Communists’ specific brainwashingtactics. In 1956, Harold Wolff and Lawrence Hinkle wrote an article entitled,“Communist Interrogation and Indoctrination of ‘Enemies of States,” in whichthey outline, specifically, the interrogation and indocrination tactics that theRussian and Chinese Communist forces used. Not only does the Kubark manualreference much of Wolff’s and other SIHE research, but the coerciveinterrogation methods that the manual advocates are similar to specifictechniques that are described in Wolff and Lawrence’s article. For instance,Wolff and Lawrence’s article reads, “Those put in isolation for the firsttime.., usually feel profoundly anxious, helpless, frustrated, dejected, andentirely uncertain about his fiiture.” They describe that the Communists usedanxiety to create an unbearable mental state in which the captive would desireany communication, even with his captor.TM Likewise, the Kubark manualsimilarly describes isolation by asserting that prisoners “... have reducedviability, are helplessly dependent on their captors for the satisfaction of theirmany basic needs, and experience the emotional and motivational reactions ofintense fear and anxiety.”65 It explains that anxiety can be used to theinterrogator’s advantage because “anxiety intensifies the desire to be with otherswho share the same fear,” thereby allowing captives to deceive the detainee withspurious sympathizers. Other similarities between Wolff and Hinkle’s articleand the Kubark manual include the use of sleep deprivation, regression,exploitation of guilt, and behavioral effects of social dependency. The CIAknew as early as 1956 that the Communists were using old-fashionedinterrogation and indoctrination techniques to achieve temporary brainwashing.Nevertheless, the CIA continued its experimentation of hypnosis, drug testing,and torturous experiments. It is through the unnecessary continuation of theCIA’s research that any ambiguity about the agency’s ethics comes into focus

The story of the CIA’s mind control research is one with many holes;however, the facts that are known are shocking. While the CIA’s research was

62 ABC News, “Mission: Mind Control.”Lawrence Hinke and Harold Wolff “Communist Interrogation and Indoctrination of ‘Enemies of

States,’ Analysis of Methods Used by the Communist State Police,” American Medical MsocationArchives of Neurology and Psychiatry; The Torture Archive, Vol. 76, August 1956, 14.63HinkeandWolfe, 14-15.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation,” July 1963,http://www.gwu.edu/ —nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB l22/index.htm#kubark (accessed April 10,2012).

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation.”

VOLUME XXII’ 2013

110 Marissa Whitten rprompted by the fear that the Communists had acquired dangerous methods ofmind control, the CIA abused its power by going beyond what was necessary toalleviate the presumed threat. In spite of the CIA’s lack of evidence, the agencyconducted its research as if the Communists were undoubtedly conductinganomalous brainwashing tactics. The CIA’s research was also often carried outwith considerable negligence and flagrant disregard for the mental and physicalhealth of the participants. Additionally, despite evidence mitigating the mindcontrol threat, the CIA continued to commit atrocious acts against its owncitizens to weaponize mind control itself. Consequently, when the agency tvasnot able to obtain the mind control weapons it pursued, its research became asubterfuge to master torturous interrogation techniques. Some may justify theCIA’s actions by arguing that is necessary for the CIA to hold defensive andoffensive advantages over its enemies to protect national security. However,how safe are citizens when members of their own government have the power touse unwitting individuals as guinea pigs for haphazard and dangerousexperimentation? After all, at what point does the ethical line becomeimpenetrable?

Marissa Whitten is pursuing a B.A. in History with an emphasis in MiddleEastern Studies at San Francisco State University. She plans to continitewith her education in this field after she graduates from SFSU and plans toone day teach at the college level.

EX POST FACTO